COGS120D Ch. 2: Infant Perception

william james

believed babies have confusing, blooming, and blurred vision; nothing is seen as coherent/structured

nativism

the belief we are born with certain, innate capacities to perceive the world

perceiving objects as a whole

we have a bias toward perceiving objects as continuous/one complete object, even if those objects are partially obscured/blocked in some way

babies 0-12 months old can

all of the above

preferential looking tests

tracked which side/image/stimuli babies would look at for longer, showing that babies could discriminate between two objects and show some sort of preference toward certain stimuli

why might babies show preferences for certain stimuli over others

they might perceive some sort of novelty, or express surprise/interest at something new or unexpected

fants (1964) preferential looking study

showed that babies prefer looking at novel/new stimuli over stimuli they’ve already habituated toward

habituation recovery tests

if infants regain attention due to new stimuli, then that means they can discriminate between stimuli, but if they don’t, they cannot discriminate between new and old stimuli

contingent-reinforcement studies

taking a behavior infants naturally do, and reinforce it to see if infants increase behavior to receive more contingent rewards/stimuli

rovee and rovee (1969) contingent-reinforcement studies

when infants had their legs tied to a mobile, such that kicking it caused the mobile to move, infants with their legs tied would kick more often to move the mobile, compared to babies who didn’t have their legs tied to a mobile

decasper and fifer (1980) contingent-reinforcement studies

when babies were given a pacifier, they would suck for longer when hearing familiar voices, compared to when they’d hear strangers’ voices

anticipatory-looking studies

making inferences on what infants expect based on where they looked

infants and taste

babies can begin tasting starting from in-utero through amniotic fluid, and thus can show taste-preferences

ussten et al (2022)

showed that fetuses and thus babies could have food-preferences, as fetuses would frown when their mothers would drink kale juice, but would smile when their mothers drank carrot juice

how do babies develop responses to different tastes

a mixture of both genetic predispositions (e.g. preferring sweet over sour) and also the diet of the mother during pregnancy

contrast sensitivity

difference in brightness between an image and its background

visual acuity

ability to see fine detail

what are easier for newborns to see

contrasting/saturated colors, simple shapes

what are harder for newborns to see

muted/desaturated/dim colors, complex shapes and structures

color perception in babies as young as 4-months old

when seeing new colors, attention is recovered, while different hues of the same color gave habituated responses, showing babies could discriminate colors from each other even when those colors were in different hues

size constancy

the degree to which objects are perceived as having constant sizes, even when their sizes in our retinal images expand/minimize

babies and size constancy

able to differentiate between two objects of different sizes, even when they have the same retinal image, as they habituated toward it

shape constancy

the degree to which we perceive shapes as the same, even when rotated or viewed from a different angle

babies and shape constancy

babies habituate to different angles of the same shape, and perceive objects as a whole, showing they have some sort of shape constancy

babies and depth perception

once they develop the ability to crawl, they are able to gauge distances by 10 months old

babies and face perception

newborns, including fetuses, prefer to look at face-like configurations/objects, especially with faces found attractive (symmetrical), and amalgam faces (faces made up of those the baby has seen before)

perceptual narrowing

novel objects/stimuli will be perceived as looking the same, while objects/stimuli that have already been readily exposed to someone, will be able to be distinguished/discriminated between each other; leads to cross-race effect

cross-race effect

people of other races will be perceived as looking the same, while people of the same race will be perceived as looking different from one another

why are we drawn to preferring to look at faces, especially as babies

we are pre-disposed to liking faces (lots of experience), and we prefer top-down orientations more than bottom-heavy orientations

newborns and top-heavy/bottom-heavy configurations

newborns will prefer to look at upright faces over upside down ones, and will prefer top-heavy face configurations (most facial features at the top, even if isnt anatomically correct) over upright and bottom-heavy faces

perceptual narrowing and newborns

the younger babies are (especially 3-month olds), the better they are at discriminating between people of same/different races

absolute threshold

how loud something must be in order to be heard

relative threshold

minimum difference in loudness or pitch needed to distinguish between two sounds

do infants prefer their mother’s voice, or a stranger’s voice?

mother’s voice

do infants prefer their mother’s voice outside of utero, or how it sounded to them in-utero?

mother’s voice in-utero

infants will prefer speech over non-speech, as well as generally familiar voices over unfamiliar voices

true

william preyer

proposed infants go through a common and universal sequence of motor development (e.g. lifting head → using arms for support → sitting upright → moving legs → crawling, etc.)

arnold gesell

following preyer’s proposal, tracked 107 infants between 4-56 weeks, and discovered motor milestones are rather plastic/pre-determined (ex: crawling will always come before walking)

maturation

genetically pre-determined process that controls the order of behaviors and skills that are learned as one grows up/develops

gesell’s twin studies (motor development)

trained one twin to climb stairs while other twin was left untrained; trained twin learned sooner, but untrained twin caught up within a few weeks

mcgraw’s twin studies (motor development)

trained one twin extensively on motor skills, but left the other completely untrained; the trained twin ended up being more proficient in trained motor skills/more generally athletic, but any untrained motor skills (e.g. walking) were not attained any sooner

infant death syndrome

rare case where healthy infants die in their sleep due to suffocation; thought to have been mainly/partly due to infants sleeping on their stomachs

back to sleep campaign

promoted babies sleeping on backs, which seemingly decreased the rate of infant death syndrome

how did infants who primarily slept on their back compare to infants who slept on their stomach

back-sleepers obtained motor skills much later than those who slept on their stomach (had more opportunities to move around)

when it comes to playing with toys/objects, how do 3-month olds compare to 6-month olds

3-month olds won’t play with objects; seemingly do not have the experience or motor capabilities to interact

what happened to 3-month olds after being given training (sticky mittens to grab objects)

increased amount of time interacting with objects, increased interest/exploration, as well as increased interest in people

compared to western standards for infant motor development, what happened when infants would spend 15-22 hours on average each day in gahvoras (tied down in beds)

gross motor milestones were delayed, but by age 4 children began hitting the same milestones

reflexes stage

substage 1 of piaget’s sensorimotor stage; at birth to 1 month of age, infants only know automatic and/or spontaneous and rhythmic actions, like sucking, wiggling limbs, kicking, etc.

primary circular reactions stage

substage 2 of piaget’s sensorimotor stage; at 1-4 months of age infants intentionally repeat their reflexes onto themselves, and turn them into recurring behaviors

secondary circular reactions stage

substage 3 of piaget’s sensorimotor stage; at 4-8 months of age, infants realize their actions have consequences in/on the environment around them, and thus repeatedly repeat their actions on objects to recreate the results/consequences

coordination of secondary circular reactions stage

substage 4 of piaget’s sensorimotor stage; at 8-12 months of age, infants become more goal-oriented and intentional, and will combine multiple actions to complete their goals

tertiary circular reactions stage

substage 5 of piaget’s sensorimotor stage; at 12-18 months of age, infants become capable of means-end analysis (able to come up with ways to solve problems/obtain things), search for new solutions to problems, and display trial and error creative/flexible thinking

mental representation stage

substage 6 of piaget’s sensorimotor stage; at 18-24 months of age, infants are able to mentally represent and manipulate objects in their mind

deferred imitation

being able to reproduce another person’s action hours or days after the fact

object permanence

understanding that objects exist even when they’re not in front of you

“A not B” error

when searching for objects out of sight/hidden, babies will rely on pre-practiced motor skills and experience to find objects, even when the object is hidden elsewhere in an area the baby is not used to

what does piaget say about babies’ capabilities (object permanence, imitation, etc.)

these abilities are not innate/hard-wired, rather they come with experience as one develops

what does nativism say about babies’ capabilities (object permanence, imitation, etc.)

all babies are born with these abilities to act on the world

imitation

around 12-18 months old, toddlers are able to copy the actions of others, and are even able to discriminate between actions freely-chosen and actions taken unintentionally, and copy intended actions

nativism

theory that proposed we are all born with certain core capabilities (agency/intentionality, intuitive physics, number approximations) to act on the world with

are infants capable of object permanence, even from a young age

yes, as shown through baillargeon et al (1985), as babies (3-months old) will stare longer at “impossible” events in an attempt to understand/scrutinize, but will habituate and become bored of possible/rational events

infants, and gravity/support

infants understand that objects cannot just float in the air, and when given “impossible” stimuli, will dishabituate to that stimuli and focus on it more, compared to possible stimuli.

intentionality

we are quick to notice patterns in things, even when such patterns do not exist, and ascribe human characteristics to, and talk about in human language toward inanimate objects; one of the core ways we structure the world

infants and intentionality

3-month olds are able to perceive intentions, as they will habituate toward what they already expect, but will dishabituate to the unexpected and become surprised/confused

over-imitate

when imitating others, we often imitate irrelevant actions before copying the action relevant to completing a task/behavior, possibly due to inferring social norms or believing the irrelevant action is actually important; may be a unique human ability (generally)

infants and approximating large numbers

when shown a stimuli consisting of smaller number arrangements, infants will habituate, but dishabituate when shown arrangements of higher numbers, and vice versa; they can distinguish two stimuli as being more or less than the other

ratio dependence

the difficulty of telling the difference between two stimuli depends on the ratio between them (smaller ratios are easier to distinguish ex: 1:2 than larger ratios ex: 3:4); applies to infants and approximating numbers

wynn (1992) processing exact quantities of small numbers

when presented with toys hidden behind the screen, then taking away those toys, infants were able to track exact quantities of 1-3, as they looked longer at things mathematically false (e.g. 1+1=3)

small numbers system

1-3

large numbers system

4+

what do researchers propose about number systems

we process smaller numbers differently from larger numbers, as smaller numbers are easier to process for us than larger number

feigenson and carey (2002) and (2005) processing small numbers studies

when given two cups, one with 1 cracker, and another with 2-3 crackers, infants always crawled to the cup with 2-3 crackers, but when shown a cup of 1 cracker and a cup of 4+ crackers, it was a 50/50 split between which cup the baby would go toward; when infants were given a manual search task, they’d search for longer when they believed one more object remained in the box